skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Weakening the security of commercial communications and financial transactions would be a serious economic risk. National cyber security agencies should treat it as a primary responsibility to help businesses secure their communications in order to harden our economies from attack. They should be part of the solution, instead of intently beavering away at being part of the problem.
I also agree... and Gerald Sussman also agree with:
"programs should be done for humans to understand, and incidentally for computers to execute."

and also Knuth agreed, and that is why he invented literate programming.

But why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me.
I'm not in a union (neither is one available nor would I prefer one), but it seems like 1-1.25% is fairly typical here in the US.
Quite the opposite: drug regulation in the USA makes it criminal for people to sell the European pens in the US.

The status quo isn't criminal: changing it to make things cheaper and more efficient is.
I've heard the talk that Robinhood website is an op by a financial fund called Citadel LLC. It may be considered market manipulation on their side well more solidly than some speculation on the internet, not to say a breach of brokerage contractual obligations.
Then block new accounts for a day or two until this blows over, not specific stocks.

Why would anyone use a trading platform that now has a history of picking and choosing what trades you are allowed to make?
(1) Running your own web service costs money (hosting fees) and time (setup, patching security issues). Often quite significant amounts of both, making it unattractive for small FOSS projects. Github provides a free and managed service.

(2) The maintainer _wants_ the community/social aspects like Issues and Discussions. They just don't want code contributions. Of course, one can run their own bug tracker and forum... but... see (1).

(3) GitHub has been branding itself as more and more of a package manager too (and in many areas it has become the de-facto one). Placing things on Github v.s. self hosting can also be seen as an SEO/advertising move for an FOSS project.
> But, content should be absolutely private.

Content has never been absolutely private and has only become so with widespread end-to-end encryption. This is the crux of the problem and what governments and law enforcement are uncomfortable with.
Better to educate instead of ban then. So long as people have the facts, let them make their own decisions. At this point a number of people are probably just in on this because they love the idea of sticking it to a hedge fund or two.
I think you are underestimating the ability of organizations to keep important private keys private.

Some examples are the code signing keys of most major desktop and mobile operating system vendors, the package signing keys of major Linux distributions, the SSL private keys of most banks and major e-commerce sites, and the certificate signing keys of most SSL certificate issuers.
Gamers is an WSB guy who made the domain to capitalize on the mania. The content is just goofy.
> How is borrowing then selling 140% of the available shares legal? How is that not market manipulation?

Why wouldn't someone be allowed to lend out a security they own to someone else?

If not allowed, why wouldn't I be allowed to make an agreement where I pay you the difference between a future stock price and some fixed value?

> The difference is retail is going to win AND there's no backroom deal to be made to stop the bleeding.

The backroom deal will be a phone call to the CEO of reddit, discord, disqus and similar and tell them to cut it out. Simple as that. No coordinating mechanism, this will die.
It’s not about a lack of other options. It’s about discoverability of your work, and authority.

Github does a great job of indexing your content on Google.

Also, the fact that the code is hosted on Github is, for me personally, a good indication that the code is probably valid. I have never, so far, pulled a package which source code was not on Github.
Squeezing a short is different then a pump and dump.
> Healthcare should be free for all, it amazes me that this is not yet the case.

Why are you amazed? It's impossible to provide a valuable product or service for free without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery, and not everyone agrees on that trade-off.

Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of opinion regarding this, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are some people with philosophical objections to encoding nonconsensual interactions like slavery or robbery into the fabric of our society.

Many reasonable people agree that providing healthcare (or other important services) for "free" to all people is more important than not having the government rob people to pay for it.

Many reasonable people agree that that is a bridge too far, and that we shouldn't be robbing people, regardless of what the stolen money is used to do.

Both are sincere positions held by sane, reasonable, intelligent, empathetic people.
Totally not dislike bots.
Everyone wants their grandma to get the most treatment possible, just no one else's. When it's "society" - people will say we're spending too much money. When the shoe is on their foot, people won't like it and say they "deserve the best care."

> for another miserable few months with chemotherapy,

My grandfather hated chemo. But he did it for those few more months - and he got to see my cousin get married. How do you account for this? You can't.
Nice article.
I think using Racket shoud be avoided because of its problematic community. I've had disgusting experiences interacting with people from Racket community in the past, but so far I thought I was the only one. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that way. Recently, a computer Scientist Leandro Facchinetti described in his video his ugly experiences with top people in Racket community. The experience was such that he completely gave up his PHD and the use of Racket forever. You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wY7FBtr7_c
In the video Leandro Facchinetti says: Speaking of people, it's very sad that I had same bad experiences with some people in the Racket community, especially the people up top because they are the kind of people who are smart and they know about it and they will not lose a chance to tell you. I'll give you some examples: I was at the Racket conference having dinner with one of the creators of the language and some other attendees and the creator of the language had some very good points about higher education and how it is kind of a scam in the U.S. but to prove his point he decided some questions to the waiter that were kind of uncomfortable and everyone at the table kind of cringed. Of course, the waiter was gratious about it but still...

As another example, I was talking to another one of the creators of the language and he called one of my collaborators a doofus and the educators at my university, which used to be John Hopkins University, a bunch of donkeys. I understand that he had some points to make about how educators work but this is not the way you make them, right?

It comes to a point that when I was talking to the students of these people, they're kind of afraid of talking to their advisors and I must admit that spending time with these people is one of the reasons why I decided to drop out of the PHD and leave academia all together, because if that's how it looks like to be successful in these communities I think I prefer to try to be successful somewhere else.
why you'd want to jump through fifty sandboxing hoops to sandbox applications like Gimp and VLC, whose developers they trust and for which they get signed packages out of their distributions' repos

To mitigate zero-day vulnerabilities in applications that parse external data (such as Gimp and VLC)? Trusting an application does not mean that it does not have vulnerabilities that can be exploited in the future.
I'm using Trading212 and they did the same today with GME and AMC.
Maths actually doesn't agree with you.

It is possible to construct end-to-end strongly encrypted systems with a backdoor that is governed by a strong social consensus process.

For example, Shamir secret sharing to split the backdoor key among a group of parties that you respect in aggregate. If, say, 50% of those parties agree that you've been a particularly awful criminal they might vote that your nefarious chat should be opened up for the authorities to examine, by contributing their key fragments.

All sorts of social consensus protocols can be built, with arbitrary rules. Probably most of them aren't such a good idea, but math does allow it.

These days we would probably use a blockchain and smart contracts to provide very strong barriers against leakage. Imagine the key fragments locked inside a smart contract that only gives out the key when N anonymous decision makers concur that the key should be given out, as well as deciding to whom it should be given. In some zero-knowledge protocols it would not even be possible to find out who voted, only the result.

It is also possible, in ideal maths world, to design systems where an AI trawls through private conversations but can only reveal information if certain conditions are detected. That sounds a bit dark, but if the conditions are also governed by social consensus processes perhaps that isn't so bad. For example if the AI is instructed (by social consensus, not authoritarians) "only extract a network of conversations if they show a clear pattern of $ParticularlyAwfulCrime, otherwise leave people to their privacy" perhaps that isn't so bad. We don't have the technology to do that now, but we may get it eventually; math is not the obstacle.
From my experience, when changing (or fixing) something on an existing system, I typically spend ~48% of the time figuring out where to do the change, then ~2% actually doing the change, and then another ~48% testing it and adapting unit tests broken by it.
Marx argued that the Paris Commune, with its directly elected and recalleable delegates was the first demonstration of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - by Marx' definition any system where one societal class has control over society was a dictatorship.

Of course one might argue there are many other ideologies that uses other definitions of the term, but there are also many other communist ideologies that argues for even more radical weakening of government control as the first stepping stone towards totally dismantling the state. E.g. libertarian Marxism is a thing.

But whatever one calls the intermediate stages, in any case the point is that when looking at a state-less, class-less endpoint, the distinction is entirely irrelevant.
No, Java Is Not a Secure Programming Language
This is interesting, can individual brokerages refuse to trade individual securities or to only allow them to be sold. Unless the SEC authorized these actions I think it arguably makes the brokerages liable for losses and is arguably market manipulation. Transferring securities positions between brokers is relatively costly and time consuming - takes at least a day and there is usually a $40-70 fee - so is a temporary but significant road block.

Robinhood may be wanting to keep their name out if the papers but unless every brokerage does this it will just move elsewhere. Just like the US was going to limit oil futures because they thought institutions were driving up gas costs - then Dubai announced they would continue to trade without restrictions, US dropped that idea like a hot potato because they would rather have high gas prices then have Dubai become the world hub for oil trading.
I follow the bitcoin crowd a bit. Everyday they issue claims like 'bitcoin was made to free us from wealthy people games' it felt echo chamber / tinfoil at times. This isn't hurting their theories.
Nice job and thanks for the mention.
You're right that they don't want to ban E2E, they want to mandate that they hold the keys to all E2E though.
> Oh please. Robinhood's business model is not designed for this kind of thing. They are not required to tank their own business to allow malcontents to feel better about themselves.

Well, they're gonna lose millions of customers over this I predict. How is that not killing their business?
Robinhood Halts Buying in GameStop and AMC
On that list, there are projects like https://github.com/Hypercubed/git2html . It makes a set of static files, which could be uploaded to any static hosting provider, including github pages.
Just 0.04% of Israelis caught Covid-19 after two shots of Pfizer vaccine
> These laws will not be legal under US law, because US congress is not permitted to make a law abridging an act of speaking, or expressing an idea, or opinion.

They may just decide instead of policing the speech, to police the practice, and make being an investor even more arbitrarily difficult.

I can easily imagine a law getting passed that in order to invest in a brokerage account where you have autonomy over the investments requires you to be an accredited investor, and it will be worded so that it is for the benefit of the people who were taken for a ride on massive "pump-and-dump" schemes that originated on misinformation platforms and social media, regardless of whether they were truly pump-and-dump or just tom-fuckery against "big hedge".
> the powers that rule USA don't realize that soon the only tool left to common people is violence?

What's even more concerning to me is that, to platforms looking for an excuse, your comment could be painted as trying to "incite" violence, and used as a justification to ban you.
Nice, Robinhood is a publisher now!
If this is correct, then why did Chewy succeed against Amazon?

Granted, dogfood is waaaay different than selling digital games outside a walled garden. No one can lock you out of your dogfood.
Sounds exactly like me, got tested for Epstein Barr and sleep apnea with no results though. Let me know if you find anything.
> Providing even close to the same uptime and snappy response times with a self-hosted service is a challenge, and it would take someone time and energy to volunteer that work – time and energy we now instead can spend of developing the project instead.

Actually, running gitlab on a ubuntu server is a no brainer, upgrading is as simple as running apt upgrade -y every couple of weeks or something (gitlab's packages run their chef recipes under the hood), uptime will most certainly be on-par with github, and probably even better which is our case.

Time to clone, fetch, push, will be much faster, it's common to find dedicated servers with at least 100Mbps of dedicated bandwidth. CI will be much faster too because dedicated, you will have no wait time, so you easily get back the little time that you have spent running apt upgrade.

> we would lose the “network effect”

You can still have github mirrors, gitlab supports it fine, it's what we do, also, gitlab supports auth via github, gmail and whatever, so you don't have to require a new username/password setup to use your instance.

> We would also lose the easy integration with cool services like the many different CI and code analyzer jobs we run.

If you want CI beyond docker, ie. on windows and macos, which I suppose would be the case for most major projects, then I believe self hosting will be a bit harder. However, for docker based CI then gitlab ci runner is extremely easy.

For code analyzers it's lagging a bit behind github I believe but you know, we were already using those before they became available as github services: just add a linter and a static analyzer such as for security or to compute mccabe indexes in CI jobs it still works well. For coverage you can just generate HTML and copy it in a public artifact that gitlab pages will serve, same for documentation.

So for me, these arguments against self hosting seem a bit weak, there is one that would seem stronger but is not mentioned: someone would actually have to pay for the server. My conclusion is that GitHub's best feature is that you don't have to pay for anything, which I can understand would overweight the fact that it's sub-optimal on every other aspect for a lot of OSS hackers.

Nice article though, even though I enjoy the benefits of running open source services on dedicated servers because I get my time back everyday I interact with the said service, I would definitely not go as far as "github is the devil" or something, it's just not my favorite solution, by far, but it's still pretty cool to have amongst the many choices for code hosting!
>thread for an unsourced tweet reaching the front page, with everybody assuming it's true

where have I seen this before?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23987584
Oh, I don't disagree. For a recent project, I found some real gems at a time when I couldn't go to a good library. But it's definitely fragmentary once you get past digital-first content.
Pricing for real-time video is hard. There are pretty large variable costs to run a service like this.

WebRTC is peer-to-peer, architecturally. But if you run the service you pay for bandwidth for users behind firewalls (because you need to forward the audio/video through TURN servers) and for calls with more than 3 or 4 people (because you need to offload some of the cpu/bandwidth from the clients).

Bandwidth and media server CPU set the floor for what you need to charge.

As a SaaS, you can charge per <usage> or charge per <user>. Each pricing model is good for a different subset of your customers. With fairly large variable costs, usage-based pricing is easier to model for you, but not necessarily for your customers.

For example, your (developer) customers that charge a flat rate per "seat" per month for their products will have trouble projecting what their margin will be if you charge them per video minute.

The industry Jitsi/8x8 competes in is gradually moving towards $0.0015/minute as the rough cost of video for customers with significant volume. So one way to look at Jitsi's pricing model is that they are projecting an average of ~4 hours of video per month per unique user. ($0.35 / $0.0015 / 60). Which seems ... low?

This is separate from the question above about how they track unique users, which I agree is really interesting!

Also, and again separately from Jitsi, there's also a long history of not-so-transparent pricing in the telecommunications world. One of the major SaaS video platforms advertises peer-to-peer calls as free on their service. And they are, if you don't count the TURN bandwidth they bill you for.

(Disclaimer: as the cofounder of Daily.co, a YC company that competes with this Jitsi service, I think about variable vs per-user pricing way too much. tldr; we can almost always do better for you than any of our competitors, partly because we're happy to talk to you and put together custom pricing based on your use case. But it's also true that most of our customers, especially our largest customers, don't select us primarily based on price. Empirically, we win on ease of use, video quality, API flexibility, and developer support. So under-pricing isn't an optimal business strategy, either.)
UCF Professor Richard Quinn accuses class of cheating (2010)
False. There’s no way out of a forced arbitration agreement that bans class actions. The courts always defer to arbitration, even when arbitrability is in question. It’s a ridiculous judicially made trap.
Some say bubble, others say “frothy.” [0] If you think its valuation will reduce, are you shorting it?

Getting acqui-listed thru GameStop would probably be less expensive than paying some phoney like the former speaker of the house [1] and you get a bunch of retail locations to boot. The existing management of GameStop cashes out a year later as they step aside a la Apple-Next.

0 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/weekinreview/2005-in-a-wo...

1 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-enpc-ipo-idUSKBN25K26O

*This post is random Internet BS and does not represent financial advice. If you or anyone you know feels a need to “buy” an equity, stock or other advanced financial product please consult with a board certified psychologist.
I hope so! If he really meant Sourceforge is alpha-quality after decades, I fear he'd forever be disappointed with the state of all software...
I keep seeing this pop up everywhere; Citadel != Citadel Securities
This is manipulating the market, imagine if you set up a brokerage where you can only sell a certain stock but not buy.
I'm hesitant to invest in an alternative currency that the CCP is one of the largest holders of as a means to stave off corruption.
Robinhood will have its work cut out to recover the trust lost today. I wonder how they will respond?
Global Privacy Control(GPC) Enabled by Default in DDG Apps and Extensions
> It’s about discoverability of your work, and authority.

The discoverability I admit. Authority is debatable.

> Github does a great job of indexing your content on Google.

Really?
Every single time I compare search inside github vs outside (google, ddg, anything), the difference is massive towards more and better results from github itself.
I don't want to sound too dramatic, but that is the beginning of the end for robinhood. Why would you use it after this ?
This does make the advantages of stuff like Ethereum dexes (uniswap, etc) a lot more obvious.
yes most probably, and that's where we need good politicians, to resolve these absurd tensions.
Another good reason to ditch Facebook !!
This is messed up but WSB has pissed off RH so much before ("infinite money cheatcode")[0] so it probably took less convincing for them to do this than one might think.

0. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/robinhood-fi...
This is the most important part that needs to be understood:

Don’t back down. Don’t apologize. Don’t make clarifications, and don’t try to appease the mob. All of these will only be taken as concessions, and embolden the mob to demand more.

Also forgot to add, as he also writes:
"Mock them mercilessly". This is the keypoint also.

Backing down never works, you have to mock them and attack them back.
How to Prioritize Software Features with a Feature Matrix
Show HN: Volley, allows designers to provide instant visual feedback to dev team
Iirc, 5G is going to solve this problem: TVs will directly connect to a 5G network, without bothering the user with WiFi matters.
I only asked after searching for it failing to find a good source
Assuming sarcasm, that was my first thought as well. Although it's possible there is something nefarious going on, I assume the White House attracts a disproportionate number of bots and this could potentially be accounted for by purge of dislikes by bots.
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
> "So it's simple to discover and execute, and there is a financial incentive, " - please - no, this is completely irresponsible.

Do you refute my claim that it's simple to discover and execute? They're essentially just banding together on public information here. GameStop, Blackberry, Nokia, AMC, they're all affected and I'm just counting days of developments here.

As for the financial incentive, it is _absolutely_ driving this behavior. The taste of cash. Most will of course lose money on this, but this is not my point. My point? There is a financial incentive! I'm not talking about morale or ethics, I'm talking about why I think this might be a watershed moment. The masses realizing this is at all possible.

Hell, throwing away cash on lotteries is also a terrible way to build fortunes, yet it's a massive industry and lives are ruined over this as well.
And the CFPB had made a rule outlawing it for financial firms and then the Republican senate killed it with the Congressional Review Act.
Robinhood doesn’t let you choose your free stock, they give you one randomly.
> They could face lawsuits from investors in Melvin and other hedge funds

Wait until Robinhood sees the class action lawsuit
Give the Revolutions podcast by Mike Duncan a listen. The French revolution was not what it seems... it was elites vs. elites, not peasants vs. monarchy.
And then the rich noted that, bought mining farms and turned bitcoin into their own playtoy.